| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Point of most recent departure: Mike: Yet, I agree with Solzhenitsyn's final words. I think sometimes, Joe, you put far to much emphasis on an abject belief in falsehood, as you call it, due to scientifically perfected mass hypnosis when, in truth, it is simply humans being humans Joe: To say that we are "simply being human" targets is an olive branch intending to bridge the gap in perspectives? My comment intends to accurately discriminate the difference between humans in general and humans who resort to crime as a means of survival. That is my viewpoint in stark contrast you what I think your viewpoint is as if you think that all human beings resort to crime as a means of survival, not just the criminals. Like this: Mike: A few very bad people with names, actual human beings having actual names, and breathing air, wearing pants, eating food, and working at places like Wall Street, invent, produced, and maintain human targets who are tortured, and murdered for the fun, and for the profit, of those few people at the expense of all those targets, and that is accountable to the human species as a whole. Joe: I invent the above perspective and I attach that above perspective to Mike, because I think Mike thinks that the human species is held accountable for the actions of a few upon the many. I don't do that, so my olive branch is to say that the targets, being targets, are far better than the criminals being criminals, if life means anything good. Targets aught to find ways to stop being targets since criminals will continue being criminals if they are allowed to be criminals. Perhaps there is a way to identify the precise place where our perspectives meet at the fence. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
yes we have to work on this.... i can tell, now that I hear your explanation of the question you posted, that I have not been able to communicate what i mean. got no time tonight but will return when able. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
It seems if I understand Mike, that truth is within perception so multiple truths can exist. This is something bear wrote, but just to clarify what I mean: There is one truth, one reality, and like Sergey, I believe it is unknowable by humans, especially considering our limited capabilities of perception. We can visualize in only three dimensions for example. Perhaps there are more dimensions. Who knows? Many explorations by the science and math community suggest this. This is a good example of why I like math. We may not be able to see a four dimensional cube, but we can find its volume, its surface area etc. We can even draw the three dimensional shadow that it would cast. There are, however, multiple perceptions. In fact one unique perception for each individual based on his sense organs ( some people are nearsighted for example) and on the neural connections in his brain which is also unique for each individual. The difference of two perceptions may sometimes be very slight as to go mostly unnoticed, and sometimes very different (like that of a schizophrenic) Furthurmore, not only is any human beings perception incapable of knowing the truth, but I also take the extreme point of view that it is not even a partial truth, it is an illusion. Now on this every attempt to prove it disproves it concept. I don't know about you, but when I dream the dream is real to me. I am in the dream. My dream perception is my reality (and a dream reality can be very different from my waking reality) until I awake. Only then do I know it was a dream. And no matter how hard I fucking try, and I have tried mighty hard, I cannot prove to myself beyond a reasonable doubt that this life I am now experiencing and perceiving is not some dream from which I will one day, maybe upon my death, awaken to find myself able to know the true reality. And then again maybe I awake to a dream within a dream within a dream... I will attempt in my next post in this forum to explain why I have invested so much time on the metaphysical and then after that, enough of metaphysics, for the time being, and lets get on with political economics. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
[ it] is as if you think that all human beings resort to crime as a means of survival, not just the criminals. No I do not think this way. I will have to try and explain again at some point. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
Joe... I get it. America is a corporation. The United states government is the executive offices of the corporation. We, the people are the laborers. The corporation has a CEO, the president. It has a CFO (chief financial officer) a COO etc., the cabinet. It has a legislative department and a judicial department, congress and the supreme court. It has multiple floor managers, the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital to make more capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce) All the governments of the developed world are moving in this direction in various ways depending on their geography, demographics, etc. We are in danger of a possible future of totalitarian governments everywhere because these type of governments provide the simplest way of controlling the workforce. Or, even worse, one supra totalitarian government: a new world order. So what are we to do? I have been attempting, through a metaphysical discussion thread to get you to abandon your notion of duality to which you cling. Life is good. No life is bad. If the process of removing the "legal criminals" from their position of power results in the termination of their lives, is this then, bad? If you managed to successfully organize the people (the workforce) and end the funding of the executives, departments and managers of the corporation of America or England or any of the other developed nations and cause their fall, I believe your followers, clinging to the same paradigm of a dual-natured reality, would recreate the same tiered society only using a restructured form of management. I believe recorded history confirms this. I have been attempting to have you realize that the "legal criminals" are also humans being humans and as such they are acting in what they believe creates a society that is "good". I feel that if you could understand this you would be able to let go of your ego and think like a "legal criminal" and that if you did you would realize that the easiest way, the way that requires the least amount of energy to maintain order, is to make the workforce happy. For instance, wars do not make for a happy work force. They do not torture for the fun and profit of it. In fact, even amongst the members of the executive offices of the corporation there is serious disagreement whether or not torture leads to the prevention of war or a happy work force. I could offer many examples, but for brevity I will not at this time do so. I believe a long term solution to this problem is a shift in the current paradigm of human awareness of thinking in terms of duality, but this will take a long time. I am especially, just now, realizing how long of a time it will take based on the difficulty I or Jee-Host are having on convincing you that perception is not self-evident. The short term solution, the way to stem the tide of government control, is most certainly an economic one. So I am willing to set aside, for the time being, the metaphysical discussion for that of economics. I sure hope this clears some things up. So, now, about this Joe's law... |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike, I could not get past this: This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital to make more capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce) Why does my belief have any place in this measure of reality? If it is true, it can be measured as true. This is a measure: You owe so get to work now. You can make these claims, including a claim about how real something is even if I don't believe it, but measures are measures, so one measure (yours) can be measured against another measure (the official one) or another measure (mine). Yours says that this corporation transfers power from the workers to the employers and back to the workers. That is your measure. The official measure is claiming that I owe at a minimum 148,155.00 Federal Reserve Notes. I don't believe your claim and more than I believe the official claim made by the people who you say are this corporation. I know that those criminals torture people with the surplus wealth I help create. So now we have 3 measures in view. Mike and his Legal Fiction claims The Legal Fiction's official claims Joe ready and willing to show Mike all the inculpatory evidence proving how evil those legal criminals are as they torture and murder people with the POWER they steal from their targets. I can read the rest of your welcome response and I can thank you for adding your perspective to the Russian History and the Singularity Topics. This is our fence. I have been attempting, through a metaphysical discussion thread to get you to abandon your notion of duality to which you cling. If I could recognize the person who you are targeting with these accusations then I could find that person and have a chat with that person. Where is this person who clings to a notion of duality? What is a notion of duality? "Life is good." I can recognize that perception as being one of my perceptions so long as it is understood that the perception is relative not absolute. I've state as much, and I can repeat the perception from my own capacity to do so, and I may actually be able to communicate the perception intact to you, but that would be a future event that appears not to be the present case. "No life is bad." I think not. If you think life is bad, then that is your perception, or a perception you are creating and then attaching to someone else, someone like me. Are you creating a perception and attaching your created perception to me, and the example is those four words? "If the process of removing the "legal criminals" from their position of power results in the termination of their lives, is this then, bad? " Relative to anyone abandoning crime as a means of survival and becoming either a recipient of voluntary charity or a productive person: yes, the answer is demonstrably yes, as far as my measure of reality I am capable of doing with my power of perception. It is bad that criminals commit crime in proportion to the destruction of life, including their own. "If you managed to successfully organize the people (the workforce) and end the funding of the executives, departments and managers of the corporation of America or England or any of the other developed nations and cause their fall, I believe your followers, clinging to the same paradigm of a dual-natured reality, would recreate the same tiered society only using a restructured form of management. I believe recorded history confirms this." It appears as if you have created a fantasy concerning what I am, what I think, what I do, and what I see, and your fantasy is unrecognizable to me, so where did this fantasy erupt into being? If the form of government returns to a Free Market one, then there will be forces at work that work to increase the quality of government and lower the cost of government and that can be demonstrated as to how that does work when it works that way, where it worked that way, and all that can have nothing whatsoever to do with me, since it has worked without any input from me, because it worked before I was born into the perception that I currently exist as being me. Your Legal Fiction and my fabricated "dual-natured reality", to me, are complete fabrications of your imagination, having nothing to do with the criminals running Legal Crime, those most powerful among us, whoever they are, or me in any way I can measure at the moment. It is as if you are watching a movie, or reading a book, or writing a story, and you tell me the title of the movie, or the book, or the story, and I say how nice, but what does that have to do with me? I have been attempting to have you realize that the "legal criminals" are also humans being humans and as such they are acting in what they believe creates a society that is "good". Examples of one may help, and then I can know that one case. I can offer examples of those most evil of the legal criminals, what they do, why they do it, in their own words, and their version of "good" is human, because they are flesh and blood, but their version of good is inhuman if English has any capacity to convey accurate meaning. You pick one of the good guys, please, and I'll know what you are talking about, and it will no longer be a mystery or fantasy. I'll pick one of the Legal Criminals. You will be on your side of the fence. I'll be showing you what exists, and know that I want to fence myself out of it entirely. I feel that if you could understand this you would be able to let go of your ego and think like a "legal criminal" and that if you did you would realize that the easiest way, the way that requires the least amount of energy to maintain order, is to make the workforce happy. For instance, wars do not make for a happy work force. They do not torture for the fun and profit of it. In fact, even amongst the members of the executive offices of the corporation there is serious disagreement whether or not torture leads to the prevention of war or a happy work force. Examples, please. You find one. I'll find one. You will be speaking about the good guy, if you find one, and that will be what you re speaking about on your side of the fence. Do you really believe that I can't find bad ones in very powerful places, doing very evil things, for their fun, and for their profit? I could offer many examples, but for brevity I will not at this time do so. I will get the ball rolling, here on my side of the fence, where your vision appears to be blurred as to what is over here on my side of the fence. I will start with 2 early cases. A. The Dirty Compromise and all who were involved in that invention, production, and maintenance. The most obvious legal criminal (based upon information available to me) is Alexander Hamilton. B. The Whiskey Rebellion and all who were involved in that invention, production, and execution. The most obvious legal criminals (based upon information available to me) is Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. C. Alien and Sedition Acts and all who were involved in their invention, production, and maintenance. The most obvious legal criminal (based upon information available to me) is John Adams. These A,B,C, goes on and on, and D goes off the charts. D. The Waco torture and mass murder made legal case and all who were involved in that invention, production, and execution. The most obvious legal criminal (based upon information available to me) is the Serial Killer named Clinton. Waco will suffice to illustrate the point as it defines the true measure of legal crime as well as any other case within my field of vision on this side of the fence. I believe a long term solution to this problem is a shift in the current paradigm of human awareness of thinking in terms of duality, but this will take a long time. I am especially, just now, realizing how long of a time it will take based on the difficulty I or Jee-Host are having on convincing you that perception is not self-evident. It seems to me that I can perceive, so your claims prove the point, so your claims are false, even as you make them. I do not say that you can perceive. How would I know? I can't, can I? I am not saying that you can experience self-evident perception. If that is what you perceive. I can perceive a claim made by you, apparently, that you can't convince me that perception is not self-evident; meanwhile my perception of your claim is perception of your claim. Perception is, and perhaps your claims are not anything at all, but I still perceive them, so your claims, therefore, of me not perceiving, if that is your claim, is false. I perceive. Whatever you seek to gain in this "convincing" will only prove the point. I perceive. So on your side of the fence you perceive company in your perception of Sergey having a similar perception as yours, and you two are failing to "convince" me of something you perceive, and that is that I am wrong? I do not perceive? I am wrong about perceiving that I perceive? That is what is happening on your side of the fence? That has nothing to do with me on my side of the fence, since I still perceive. Self evident perception, right there, in perception of light, in perception of a constant ringing in one side of my perceptive capacity. They say that tinnitus is the sound of silence, and sometimes it sounds like hell reaching for me. Self-evident perception can get ugly. On your side of the fence, I suppose, and I'm not saying that I perceive that my supposition is true, or self-evident, or absolutely factual, but my guess is that on your side of the fence there is this perception that perception can end. I do not think that perception can end, not for sure, not a self-evident fact, so I don't go there, if you can. I don't. I mean to say that I don't invest in a belief that perception can end, since all I know so far is that perception exists, because it exists now. "The short term solution, the way to stem the tide of government control, is most certainly an economic one." Based upon the information I perceive, this information that may, or may not, be originating from another perceptive being, a possible perceptive being called Mike, based upon that information, from that possible source, I can't make anything out of that sentence, since it is meaningless to me. The use of the word "government" appears to be pointing to good human beings who are doing good thing with their corporation, and I think that is nice, and nothing to worry about, and so there is not problem there that is of any concern to me. Let them solve their company problems as they see fit. "So I am willing to set aside, for the time being, the metaphysical discussion for that of economics. " Currently there are people in the State of Utah who have already begun the process of inventing, creating, and maintaining their own Legal Money, and if that example is not Crushed, or "Incorporated" into the Single Legal Money Monopoly Power, then other people in other States will follow suit, and those actions by those people in those States could pull the plug on World War III, and a new age of Free Market government can begin, and the practice of investing in Legal Crime can pass into human history like burning witches. Exactly like burning witches. I sure hope this clears some things up. What I find reinforced often is the concept of avoiding the temptation to assume that someone else has any capacity to know how I perceive life, because I am so often wrong. So, now, about this Joe's law... If you can make a fence around it, please do, it is demonstrable in many ways, by many accurate measures. Have at it - please. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital to make more capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce) It is probably best to deal with these one at a time and I will start with the above statement. Yours says that this corporation transfers power from the workers to the employers and back to the workers. No. This is not what it says. Where in my statement do you find this word "power"? This is nothing more than the definition of capitalism: an economic system characterized by free market in which means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportional to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. So perhaps I should have written, and reinvests that capital to make more capital. Is this better? This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital and reinvests that capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce) And this statement does not say that the standard of living is actually increased. It only states that it is part of the principle of capitalism. My statement is only a restatement of the definition of capitalism and nothing more. You do not have to agree with the notion that capitalism is the best means for the production and distribution of goods. I certainly don't. It's awfully unfair if you ask me. I am searching for a better system. This seems straight forward to me. Does this clear things up ? Can you get past this piece now? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Nice work Mike, and thanks.No. This is not what it says. Where in my statement do you find this word "power"? When I use the term surplus wealth (and I can sure know better as to what you mean when you use the term) I mean that there no exists more things that are required for survival than those things that are required for survival, and I can measure that surplus of those things that are required for survival in some accurate way that can be called Purchasing Power. So whatever you mean, when you use that term, can be accurately communicated to me in English if English can serve as tool for that expressed purpose. This corporation operates... You might as well be on Mars and I am moroned on some distant asteroid as far as those three words go, and that may have some connection to the lack of words required to convey an accurate measure of surplus wealth, but I don't know. I think we can find out where we part on the fence. It only states that it is part of the principle of capitalism. I am going to offer to you my understanding of the principle of capitalism and I won't use my own words. Here: Wait, before I find these words I want to express in English symbols a perception I have concerning what I think is true compared to what I know is true. I know that perception exists, and other than that I am guessing, and therefore this effort to convey accurate meaning on the genuine definition of capitalism is futile, since it requires agreement in order for the meaning to mean anything along the lines of communicating accurately. I can be wrong; on other words, in your field of vision, and I know that going into the effort. Here: Menger on Capitalism: Carl Menger Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.” Your words: "And this statement does not say that the standard of living is actually increased. It only states that it is part of the principle of capitalism." Mike (or the perception I have of this nebulous being called Mike) 4/14/203 This statement: This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital and reinvests that capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce) The workforce are the targets, and if you feel like joining them, have at it, and who am I to rain on your parade? I am nobody. But, please leave me out of it entirely. Please, pretty please, with sugar on top. My statement is only a restatement of the definition of capitalism and nothing more. I see no such thing, but a Mike's dictionary is begging to be created and that can happen right here on this forum, if you are willing to do so, and I can't put words in your mouth, so the end result will have to be you agreeing to the working definition of capitalism as you intend to use that word. I have had a working definition of capitalism working for me for some time now, probably decades, and it is this: Capitalism: A pricing scheme I can elaborate on the specifics of the pricing scheme that is capitalism and I can go into great detail. If you are going to use a word, that you call capitalism, and then you are going to intend to convey to me something that I may be able to use to be better than I am today, then I need specifics, and I don't need ambiguities. Please. it takes an initial capital and reinvests that capital to make more capital Please: what is it? Is it a legal fiction, a legal person, an entity that is not an individual human being? I would like to know what you perceive it to be, please. I am searching for a better system. I found this: Equitable Commerce It is a competitive pricing method. Does this clear things up ? Can you get past this piece now? As if I have not been here years ago, contemplating the meaning of capitalism, according to the authorities of it. Please consider setting aside any other definition of capitalism other than your own working definition, and we can find use of that term, in mutual agreement, and then we may proceed. Or not, since I am merely fabricating this notion of perception, and in reality who knows what is happening? Certainly not me? |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
Joe, This is exactly what drives me crazy with you. I read through the link you posted of an excerpt from Menger's book and the word capitalism doesn't appear even once in that excerpt. I even pasted the excerpt into my word processor and searched for it. Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. This is an analysis of human behavior not a definition of the economic system of capitalism. We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth This is a definition of wealth (very much along the lines of Joe's law, I suspect) not capitalism. It is difficult to keep you on task. The United States of America, which is a corporation, a Legal Fiction, a nebulous thing to be held responsible, accountable, so as to allow the actual criminals to be untouchable, unknown, and free from any power that might compete with their exclusive monopoly of crime made legal. The above quote is your words from another post, so when I say America is a corporation I assume you agree. And this corporation operates in an economic system known as capitalism. The workforce are the targets, and if you feel like joining them, have at it, and who am I to rain on your parade? I am nobody. But, please leave me out of it entirely. Please, pretty please, with sugar on top. You consider the workforce targets. I have no problem with that, but you are living in this country so you are in the Corporation of America's workforce even though you oppose the corporation. So you should consider yourself as a workforce member who has avoided being targeted. Good for you, incidentally, that is not an easy thing to do. "It" was the pronoun I used to represent capitalism, sorry for the confusion. an economic system characterized by free market in which means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportional to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. This is the definition of capitalism. If Carl Menger were here and we could ask him I am all but certain he would say that the italicized words above is a description of capitalism. I didn't like the surplus wealth phrase I added anyway so I removed it as well as the standard of living malarkey. I also decided the real problem you have is the phrase "operates according to" . I have changed that as well. Please stick to this only for right now. Are the following italicized words acceptable now? America is a corporation. The United states government is the executive offices of the corporation. We, the people are the laborers. The corporation has a CEO, the president. It has a CFO (chief financial officer) a COO etc., the cabinet. It has a legislative department and a judicial department, congress and the supreme court. It has multiple floor managers, the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, IRS, etc. This corporation is financed by means of the principles of capitalism: an economic system characterized by free market in which means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportional to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. and by the way, calling --- "Capitalism: A pricing scheme" --- a working definition of capitalism is like calling--- football: a game ----a working definition of football. I understand that you can elaborate, in other words, analyze how capitalism functions, but how would you summarize it in, say, 30 words or less. PS the Josiah Warren piece is interesting. I will "commend it to my careful perusal." |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike, You claim now that I am the problem, that it is difficult to keep me on task, as we are here at this fence. Who builds this fence? So you should consider yourself as a workforce member who has avoided being targeted. Good for you, incidentally, that is not an easy thing to do. Often I read your words and find you speaking about someone, and I try to figure out who you are speaking about, and there isn't anyone there when I look for this person you are speaking about, or the person you are speaking to, does not exist. I am me. I know me. Whoever you are speaking to, at this fence, is not me. I can exemplify this with each sentence I've read so far in your last reply. This is exactly what drives me crazy with you. I read through the link you posted of an excerpt from Menger's book and the word capitalism doesn't appear even once in that excerpt. I even pasted the excerpt into my word processor and searched for it. If the defining of capitalism is being done, who is doing it, and if you think someone is driving you crazy, with the information they offer to you concerning the definition of capitalism, then you can use your definition, and I can know it too, once I find it, which so far is not the case. I am not intending to drive anyone crazy, the information offered is offered for a specific reason, in case you care to know, I can report to you those reasons. Meanwhile you are being driven crazy by someone, and I'm wondering who is doing the driving. I look and find no one. Absent a working definition of capitalism, there is not need for the word, or if there is a need for the word, without a working definition, the goal must be deception, or some secret goal kept from those who use the word that has no definition, at least the intent is hidden from me, or the intent is a secret as far as my perceptive power goes. This is an analysis of human behavior not a definition of the economic system of capitalism. Your perspective of the words published by Carl Menger and the words I offered to you as a definition of capitalism, is such that you do not perceive things the way I perceive things. So now your perception dominated my perception when my goal was to offer to you my understanding of the definition of capitalism according to one of the people who are one of the authorities on capitalism. So I'm looking for the person you are communicating your perspective to, as if your perspective dominates that persons perspective by your measure. That person is not me. I know what I perceive in those words where Carl Menger defines capitalism. If you don't know what I perceive in those words where Carl Menger defines capitalism, then you don't know, and that is fine with me, but what is the point of claiming, if what you are doing is making this claim, that your perception is in some measure better than my own? If you don't want to use Carl Mengers words as the authoritative defining of capitalism, then you can define capitalism in any way that works for you and then whenever you use the word I can take out the work and place your definition in that sentence and then I can begin to understand your perspective concerning capitalism. This is a definition of wealth (very much along the lines of Joe's law, I suspect) not capitalism. That (Carl Menger's words) is opposite my understanding of economic power or "wealth" and here at this fence, where someone I can't even see is driving you crazy, you had questioned my employment of the word power, and so I was sent on this trip to define capitalism according to the authorities on capitalism. Now you suspect that Carl Menger's definition of wealth (your interpretation) is "very much along the lines of Joe's Law," which to me is nearly opposite, and that these words by Carl Menger are "not capitalism," meaning I have failed to offer an authoritative definition of capitalism according to the capitalism authorities. So you are at the fence and you arrived here voluntarily, and so this is the point where I am inspired to ask you what is the point of you being at this fence? It appears to me that you are at this fence to school me, to set me straight, and your words often repeat this theme, yet you care not to even entertain my viewpoints, in the least, and instead of entertaining my viewpoints you consistently invent a viewpoint of your own construction and you attach your fabricated viewpoint to me, and on at least one occasion so far you have apologized for doing so. Here, where you are being driven crazy by someone, is an obvious, measurable, repeat of the same scenario, if my memory serves me, and I don't feel the need to go back an check, I don't feel that need strongly enough, because I trust that you can understand me, when you feel like doing so, and errors along the way are insignificant in a negative sense and they are only significant in a positive sense to the extent that they serve as known errors. I could go into a long explanation as to how Carl Menger's words define capitalism as I see it, but you prefer not to see that, apparently, so we are back to you, as far as I can see, defining capitalism in a way that suits you. It is difficult to keep you on task. Here is where my former self would be enraged, and over many years of this type of personal attack upon me, I've grown to be able, capable, of deflecting the power of those words. You set yourself up as my better, and you are commanding this task, and I am merely your subject, and when I am not following orders without question it is you who fixes accountability onto me for that error of mine. I can get so very angry about this, in the past, extremely angry, completely beside myself, because there is much power on those words, as I see it, and those days are in my past. What is the point? What is the task, according to you, at this fence? Who is creating this fence? The above quote is your words from another post, so when I say America is a corporation I assume you agree. And this corporation operates in an economic system known as capitalism. I do no such thing, so your assumptions here are more examples of me wondering who you are writing to while we meet at this fence. I can go on and on as to how my viewpoint is unrecognizable from the viewpoint you apparently assume my viewpoint to be, but I thought that there was a problem, according to you, with me using the word power, and then I went to the authorities on capitalism to begin defining capitalism, so as to have a working definition of capitalism, and if you have one, then use yours, and I have one, and I offered mine. Stepping slightly further back, it is, at this fence, your contention, as I understand it to be, that human beings are simply being human beings and my contention is that some are inhuman by their thoughts and actions as they target innocent people and do very inhuman things to innocent people numbering in the millions (as experienced by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn) or by a number less than 100 people in Waco Texas, or by a number of people in other places right here in this place that could be called a corporation if that is what you want to call it. So you should consider yourself as a workforce member who has avoided being targeted. Good for you, incidentally, that is not an easy thing to do. What I should do according to you and what I do are measurably two entirely different things, and again I am inspired to inform you that whoever you are speaking to, it is not me. I'm looking for this person who is requesting your moral help in deciding for me what I should or should not do in light of the information I know, as if you are telling me to go ahead and keep staring at the sun, and I'm not that person. I'm not asking you for your moral help in deciding for me what I should or should not do in light of the information I know; concerning Legal Criminals currently perpetrating very serious crimes affecting me and my loved ones. Thanks, but no thanks. an economic system characterized by free market in which means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportional to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. Works for me, so long as you understand that to me that is not the definition of capitalism, and if Carl Menger was here I'd be asking different questions than the questions you may ask of him. Your working definition of capitalism can be know now, and whenever you use the word capitalism I can take out the word capitalism and I can plug in that sentence to help me understand what you are offering to me as your competitive perspective. At this time I want to tell you something that keeps returning to the surface of my memory every time I unwrap a new stick of butter. Each time, currently in memory, where I unwrap a new stick of butter I am reminded of the time you were unwrapping a new stick of butter, in your typically exemplary way, during a feeding of your children, while living at your fathers house in Barstow. That is a good memory to me and it is current, a powerful memory to me. America is a corporation. The United states government is the executive offices of the corporation. We, the people are the laborers. Here is where you are schooling me or you are offering to me your viewpoint on those things that you perceive? You say that "The United States government IS..." Are you claiming that your measure of what is or is not The United States government overpowers my measure of it? I can see your viewpoint and I can measure your viewpoint relative to my viewpoint, and they are not the same viewpoint, far from it, and therefore what am I supposed to be doing with your viewpoint according to you? I reject your viewpoint immediately, since it is lacking in any power to me, it has no substance, it is meaningless, it is hogwash, and it is deceptive, misleading, and powerless to me. So you are on your side of this fence with your viewpoint of what The United States government IS..., and I am on my side of this fence and I have not been idle in finding out what is The United States government, so what, again, are you claiming to be, what is: what should I do with your viewpoint? Accept it, as your viewpoint? Make your viewpoint my own? You continue to give me your viewpoint of me, generously, I know, you are busy, and life is precious, or not, I'm not sure, but I guess that life is precious to you, so you offer your description of me in this perception you offer concerning The United States government, and I am as you say, one of the laborers. If I get what you are offering to me correctly: I am on of the laborers laboring under The United States government. So now I know where I belong according to you? and by the way, calling --- "Capitalism: A pricing scheme" --- a working definition of capitalism is like calling--- football: a game ----a working definition of football. I understand that you can elaborate, in other words, analyze how capitalism functions, but how would you summarize it in, say, 30 words or less. Capitalism functions as a method of transferring power from the targets to those who do the targeting. 17 words. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
wow! You drive me crazy is a figure of speech. I say it to my wife all the time when she does things differently sometimes. didn't realize it would set you off. or maybe it is some cumulative effect. america IS a corporation came from you... I even posted the very words you typed where you said so. America HAS a government. I thought I was being clever with the executive offices of a corporation analogy, from a literary standpoint. I thought you would like it. I thought I was writing what you wanted to hear. boy was I was wrong. As for the Menger quotes I don't know what to say. except i guess i need you to tell me in your own words what they mean. We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth" I read these words and interpret them to mean if there existed more stuff than a society required for everything we required there would be no need for an economy or wealth. They wouldn't exist. Am I wrong? Joe's law states that if you have more power supplied than is needed the price of power goes down. An infinite supply of power and there wouldn't be a need for an economy or wealth. Are not these two concepts similar or am I that ignorant? I do not know how to express how truly lost I am right now. I feel like I worked all weekend long on a project for the teacher at school and I thought I was delivering exactly what he wanted and instead I am scolded and given a big red "F". |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike, When people meet at these places I call fences there is little to be gained if there is no desire to gain anything. You wrote: As for the Menger quotes I don't know what to say. except i guess i need you to tell me in your own words what they mean. As far as I am concerned you need to be the best that you can be while you occupy your human existence, and other than that my intentions are to help you if you want my help, and other than that I trust that you are like a security blanket to me, and a very welcome one since I have already lost my father and mother. I chose to read further, despite having other things the choose from on this conveyor belt called life. I read these words and interpret them to mean if there existed more stuff than a society required for everything we required there would be no need for an economy or wealth. They wouldn't exist. Am I wrong? You chose to ask a question. I think that the question you ask is vital, and that is why I offered those words to you. Will an inaccurate answer be good enough for government work? I can offer a competitive interpretation of those words and as far as I know your version is accurate to a point, but what is the point? Is there any power in knowing the meaning of the sentence? Is there any use in knowing the meaning of the sentence? For example: is the sentence accurate or is the sentence inaccurate? Does the sentence offer a more productive way to view political economy in a general sense, as in the sense that all human beings can gain from this sentence, or does the sentence offer someone a way to gain as an individual human being at the expense of other individual human beings? So I have many more questions than answers offered to you, at this fence. If you care to know, I have competitive answers to the questions that are inspired by your question. Joe's law states that if you have more power supplied than is needed the price of power goes down. An infinite supply of power and there wouldn't be a need for an economy or wealth. Here is where my discovery makes the most sense to me and I read your question concerning your ignorance and in light of my own ignorance I am not in a good place to be judging yours. I can report to you my findings on this subject at this fence, and at this point in time right here at the end of this sentence with this period. As soon as any person needs or wants anything there can be a signal, a communication, an advertizement, from that person, and that person signals to other people such a need or want and that constitutes an economic demand. How much power is in the Sun? Do you still want sun screen? I do not know how to express how truly lost I am right now. I feel like I worked all weekend long on a project for the teacher at school and I thought I was delivering exactly what he wanted and instead I am scolded and given a big red "F". I can pretend to be the teacher, if that works for you, but I now have an example of how discussions can work with me, and the experience has led to a book, and I can send you a copy of the book soon, if you want a copy. There will be 25 copies made in the first printing, so far according to the plan. I don't see this as me being a teacher unless the student, in such a relationship, is agreeable to the understanding I have that I am as much a student as is the student. I can elaborate on that a lot, in many ways, on many paths, and which path picked is not up to me, when the goal is to know better, and the goal is mutually shared by those engaged in discussion. As to the confusion, before I forget, concerning a sentence I wrote, and your use of the sentence I wrote, where I get an idea as to how poorly I communicated the intended message to you, I can elaborate on that perceived confusion some. This sentence: The United States of America, which is a corporation, a Legal Fiction, a nebulous thing to be held responsible, accountable, so as to allow the actual criminals to be untouchable, unknown, and free from any power that might compete with their exclusive monopoly of crime made legal. A Legal Fiction is at least existing in two forms currently. One form is the genuine form, whereby there is a list of names of people, and these are all honest, responsible, and potentially held to account for their actions, people. There may be 100 people on the list of people who constitute a Legal Fiction. An illustrative example could be a person named Mike who wins the lottery, buys a bunch of Solar Panels and Electric Cars and takes over the Taxi business in another Legal Fiction called a City, and he hires a bunch of drivers, and manager, and then he sits back and collects the Surplus Wealth being generated competitively. On that list is Mike, the manager, and the drivers, and they form a Legal Fiction for accounting purposes, so that anyone, anywhere, wanting to deal with the drivers, the manager, or Mike, or all of those people on that list at once, anyone, at any time, can conveniently refer to Mike's Taxi Service instead of naming each name on the list of people. That is the genuine article, the honest employment of, a Legal Fiction. If the City where Mike's Taxi Service is operating is run by a False Front version of the Legal Fiction, then there will be people hired to go to see Mike and demand from Mike a piece of the action, and Mike will pay that extortion fee, one way, or the other way, and Mike cannot hold anyone to account, save for himself, each time he pays the extortion fee, since Mike will be sending his earnings, in the form of Legal Purchasing Power, to the criminals that injure Mike. The reasoning for the False Front version of a Legal Fiction is to misdirect accountability away from the actual criminals and place that focus of willful defensive effort upon an imaginary being called The City, in this illustrative case. You, Mike, can't fight City Hall. That is the tune. That is a very brief and very potentially inadequate explanation of what I mean when I wrote that sentence that did not convey to you what I meant, obviously, since your comments when using my sentence, as far as I can tell, are off the mark. This sentence: The United States of America, which is a corporation, a Legal Fiction, a nebulous thing to be held responsible, accountable, so as to allow the actual criminals to be untouchable, unknown, and free from any power that might compete with their exclusive monopoly of crime made legal. The United States of America is a False Front, a crime in progress, and that crime that is still in progress started in 1788. That is what the Study Work Report following is all about: Update Liberty Day Challenge If you meet me at this fence, I have over 20 years of information gathering, and other things, to offer at this fence. I do need a teacher. I do need to be schooled. That is why I am here, but how can I know when I'm being schooled? |
|||||||||||
